Yes I use it for defense, at my old job I had to travel to areas of town that were not safe, so I got a CCW permit. Since my new job doesn't involve that, I don't carry daily anymore. I still have it for home defense.

Do I want to use a gun on another human? No. Am I afraid to use it on another human who breaks into my home or threatens my life? No.

I have 11 firearms, all locked up in a 500lbs safe, except for my pistol I keep on the nightstand.

Isn't there some middle ground? I'm not, and I never have been, a strong proponent of gun control. I don't want to take away CDT's handguns, or a hunter's rifles. But why is it unreasonable to want to at least TRY to make it difficult for fucking lunatics to acquire military assault rifles and 6000 rounds of ammo?

Yes I use it for defense, at my old job I had to travel to areas of town that were not safe, so I got a CCW permit. Since my new job doesn't involve that, I don't carry daily anymore. I still have it for home defense.

Do I want to use a gun on another human? No. Am I afraid to use it on another human who breaks into my home or threatens my life? No.

I have 11 firearms, all locked up in a 500lbs safe, except for my pistol I keep on the nightstand.

Are there a lot of home break-ins in Galloway?

Sorry Wally, you and the Bever must find it hard to believe that people lock their doors and windows at night.

Living in a "bad" area isn't a pre requisite to arm yourself. Bad things happen to people in all walks of life. If CDT or anyone else is a step ahead so be it.

Do I need a license to have The Gimp in my basement should anyone make the mistake of entering my home? Forget firepower, someone is gonna pay dearly, for a while if they make that mistake

Galley Boys are slop on top of a so-so burger and a bun you coulde get from a Covneninet food mart generic pack. They the Antoine Joubert of burgers; soft, sloppy, oozing grease and cheap sauce and extremely overrated by a biased fan base. Proof that if you throw enough cheap sauce shit on a burger you still can't overcome the lame burger. -JB

I can tell you there aren't a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up theaters in the nice part of Aurora, what's your point.

Taking guns away is completely reactionary. Much like the abortion debate it is pointless because just as Roe v. Wade isn't getting over turned, guns are not getting taken from people, they just aren't

You want to take away "assault weapons"? Good for you, I know multiple people with the same AR-15 that they have because they enjoy shooting and have yet to go on a rampage. If you can figure out how to prevent one from getting in a psycho's hand with no prior indication that he is a nut job with out taking away these guns from the other 99.999% who just enjoy shooting them, go for it.

The discussion of even banning assault weapons under the pretense that with out these weapons mass killings would be avoided is worthless. If this dickweed couldn't get a gun, he could do plenty of damage by driving a Uhaul full of fertilizer in to a crowd.

Crazy people do crazy things, they find ways. Just because we take off our shoes in the security line at the airport doesn't mean we are any more safe.

I can tell you there aren't a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up theaters in the nice part of Aurora, what's your point.

Taking guns away is completely reactionary. Much like the abortion debate it is pointless because just as Roe v. Wade isn't getting over turned, guns are not getting taken from people, they just aren't

You want to take away "assault weapons"? Good for you, I know multiple people with the same AR-15 that they have because they enjoy shooting and have yet to go on a rampage. If you can figure out how to prevent one from getting in a psycho's hand with no prior indication that he is a nut job with out taking away these guns from the other 99.999% who just enjoy shooting them, go for it.

The discussion of even banning assault weapons under the pretense that with out these weapons mass killings would be avoided is worthless. If this dickweed couldn't get a gun, he could do plenty of damage by driving a Uhaul full of fertilizer in to a crowd.

Crazy people do crazy things, they find ways. Just because we take off our shoes in the security line at the airport doesn't mean we are any more safe.

AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

peeker643 wrote:AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

And you believe the second amendment is a plausible example to use to demonstrate this?

Especially since those who do bear arms in the United States actually do so in transgression of the Second Amendment since it clearly states that your right to bear and keep arms will not be infringed upon so long as the security of the nation requires a militia force (which it doesn't)

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Oh, and King George isn't an issue anymore.

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

peeker643 wrote:AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

And you believe the second amendment is a plausible example to use to demonstrate this?

Especially since those who do bear arms in the United States actually do so in transgression of the Second Amendment since it clearly states that your right to bear and keep arms will not be infringed upon so long as the security of the nation requires a militia force (which it doesn't)

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Oh, and King George isn't an issue anymore.

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

.

Hmmm...lets see, do I go with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constituition, or some random British guy's? You couldn't possibly be more wrong about the interpretation, either.

Also, there are more home invasions with the homeowner present in the UK than anywhere else in the world, which are a whole different kind of dangerous. Get your own house in order before you come knocking on ours. And keep your VAT on that side of the pond, thanks very much.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

peeker643 wrote:AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

I think the issue is that the term "assault rifle" means whatever the current law says it means. Some politicians want any weapon that fires more than one shot without reloading to be considered an "assault weapon." Some cap it at a 10-round magazine. Some think it's only a weapon that can go full auto.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

So, and not being a smart ass (yet), the fact I don't have to reload my S&W 442 between shots maks it an assault weapon in some politician's eyes? Or are you speaking solely of rifles and long guns or gas-fed magazines?

I hear ya though. I should have said as far as weapons-specific definitions (and not politicians, etc), that an assault rifle needs to have automatic capacity.

gotribe31 wrote:

peeker643 wrote:

Ziner wrote:

peeker643 wrote:AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

I think the issue is that the term "assault rifle" means whatever the current law says it means. Some politicians want any weapon that fires more than one shot without reloading to be considered an "assault weapon." Some cap it at a 10-round magazine. Some think it's only a weapon that can go full auto.

I was using assault weapon as the political definition, I dont really know what is considered what, so that is where I wasn't following you. When these weapons are discussed generally a AR-15 is described as the type of gun that would be banned should a assault weapon bill be enacted. So I just assumed it was one, I am not really "in" to guns. I have a 12 gauge, 20 gauge, .22 and a 9mm that I dont generally do a lot with and I didn't buy. I don't even have rounds for my 9mm because I am not overly comfortable with it. I bet I could throw it really hard at an intruder though.

Yes, it does. That's just how stupid some people are. Double-barreled shotgun? Assault weapon. .22 pistol? Assault weapon. It's one reason Obama and Hillary conspired to prohibit the importation of old M1 rilfes from Korea...they were considered to have "high capacity detachable" mags. It's insane.

peeker643 wrote:So, and not being a smart ass (yet), the fact I don't have to reload my S&W 442 between shots maks it an assault weapon in some politician's eyes? Or are you speaking solely of rifles and long guns or gas-fed magazines?

I hear ya though. I should have said as far as weapons-specific definitions (and not politicians, etc), that an assault rifle needs to have automatic capacity.

gotribe31 wrote:

peeker643 wrote:

Ziner wrote:

peeker643 wrote:AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

I think the issue is that the term "assault rifle" means whatever the current law says it means. Some politicians want any weapon that fires more than one shot without reloading to be considered an "assault weapon." Some cap it at a 10-round magazine. Some think it's only a weapon that can go full auto.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

In the U.S., overall crime, violent crime, and gun crime are all trending down in recent years. Statistics I see are saying that while overall crime in UK is down slightly, gun violence is a lot higher than it was 10 years ago...despite (because of?) gun control laws. What I have also read is that there is a sharp increase in home robberies committed while the owners are at home...because in general, robbers have no fear of being confronted by an armed homeowner.

The bloviating Mayor Bloomberg makes the case against his own argument for more gun-control laws when he says "34 people are killed in this country every day, and the majority of those crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally"

Also making the case against gun control laws (in addition to the UK) is Chicago, which has some of the nation's strictest anti-gun laws, and where we have an Aurora, CO every month, but since it's mostly blacks killing blacks, it doesn't lead the evening news. 50 people shot in Chicago in one weekend recently.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

motherscratcher wrote:Dan, are you saying that in Chicago a man walks into a public place and opens fire randomly, wounding 50 strangers, and it went unreported because they are black?

Don't mean to put words in his mouth, but I think he's referring to the total number of shootings in a given weekend, not a single mass shooting event. If that's the case, he's right; just a couple of months ago there were 50 shootings in Chicago, resulting in 10 deaths. It was reported on, but definetly not headline news around the country:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 62604.html

And it happens pretty often. Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, has had more homides since 2001 than US deaths in Afghanistan. And it's not even close.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

Well ok then. So let's not pretend that a bunch of shootings in Chicago, most likely between shooters and victims who are known to each other, is somehow comparable to what happened in CO. And that the shootings didn't make national headlines due to race.

It has less to do with race (the coverage) and more to do with commonality. People get shot all the time in Chicago. Its 95% of the time in the south or west side. Have a person shot in Wrigleyville and it is headline news in Chicago. Very similar to Iraq and Afghanistan, how many times have 10+ people been killed in a day? Very little coverage.

This is a story because:

1. the dude is fucking nuts, not angry at an ex-wife or in a gang2. it happened in anytown USA 3. provides an opportunity for talking heads to discuss gun laws

motherscratcher wrote:Well ok then. So let's not pretend that a bunch of shootings in Chicago, most likely between shooters and victims who are known to each other, is somehow comparable to what happened in CO. And that the shootings didn't make national headlines due to race.

Agreed.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

motherscratcher wrote:Well ok then. So let's not pretend that a bunch of shootings in Chicago, most likely between shooters and victims who are known to each other, is somehow comparable to what happened in CO. And that the shootings didn't make national headlines due to race.

Agreed.

Of course, Al read me right...and showed with a link that it was reported in fact...

but here's the thing...if I get you moscratch, the 50 people shot in Chicago in one weekend aren't remotely comparable to the 70-some shot by one guy in Colorado...because why? Because some of the victims may have possibly been acquainted with their assailants? This somehow makes them less shot...or less dead? Or less worthy of our attention or compassion and concern?

As others have pointed out, the Chicago shootings weren't sensationalized because, tragically, they are commonplace, and resulted from the sum total of multiple shootings...therefore less newsworthy...again, making them still no less shot or no less dead. The same thing happens every day, not just in Chicago of course.

And we are kidding ourselves if we suggest that race is/was not a component of their newsworthiness. Some 95% of black shooting victims are shot by fellow blacks...and blacks make up the large majority of shooting victims. We saw how newsworthy it was when a guy named Zimmerman shoots and kills a black kid in Florida. When the vast majority of any given week's shooting victims in Chicago (or any other inner city) are blacks shot by blacks...crickets...at least in terms of hand-wringing by national media figures, and attention from race hustlers like Jesse J. and Sharpton.

If you count rival gangs shooting randomly at each other as your evidence that these urban shootings are "most likely people who are known to each other", I would say...except when they're not...and except when they are completely innocent bystanders like moviegoers in Aurora...which happens all the time.

Yes, mass killings are different animals, but thankfully, they are also rare. The other stuff is a weekly and monthly occurrence, and my point was that it is no less tragic, but it is much less reported on, and the death toll is much greater in any given month or year.

I don't own a gun, BTW..never have.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Of course lives are lives Dan. And dont start acting righteous because we dont shed individual tears for every person to die in tragic circumstances, whether it be from a gun, a knife, starvation, or slipping and falling in the shower.

People are calling this a tragedy because that's what it is. It's a fucking tragedy. People aren't reporting in Cleveland every shooting that occurs on the south side of Chicago, not because they are black (like you keep implying) nor because their lives are worth less than the guy who died diving in front of his girlfriend in that theater. It's because like you said, it's commonplace. And not just in Chicago.

This is a story because of the scale. And that's the only reason why. The scale, the tragedy of it, and the incredible story of it.

Do you honestly think that if some lunatic African American walked into Madea Takes Manhattan in Chicago, opens up with an AK, and shoots 70 people, that the worldwide media would greet that story with a collective "meh, it's only black people."? Because that's insane. And it's complete and utter bullshit.

motherscratcher wrote:Do you honestly think that if some lunatic African American walked into Madea Takes Manhattan in Chicago, opens up with an AK, and shoots 70 people, that the worldwide media would greet that story with a collective "meh, it's only black people."? Because that's insane. And it's complete and utter bullshit.

Of course I don't, and I never said it or implied it. We were talking about different media treatment of various incidents of gun violence. Don't put words in my mouth and counter arguments I never made, thanks.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

2) In this country, we have incidents of gun violence that are equally tragic, and far greater in terms of actual count of dead and wounded people ("scale"), every single week, playing out on the streets of our major cities.

3) As a society, and in our media, we react to #1 and #2 in very different ways.

4) They are not comparable only if we decline to compare them.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

2) In this country, we have incidents of gun violence that are equally tragic, and far greater in terms of actual count of dead and wounded people ("scale"), every single week, playing out on the streets of our major cities.

3) As a society, and in our media, we react to #1 and #2 in very different ways.

motherscratcher wrote:Do you honestly think that if some lunatic African American walked into Madea Takes Manhattan in Chicago, opens up with an AK, and shoots 70 people, that the worldwide media would greet that story with a collective "meh, it's only black people."? Because that's insane. And it's complete and utter bullshit.

Are you insinuating that only black people see Tyler Perry movies? You racist you.

And you believe the second amendment is a plausible example to use to demonstrate this?

Especially since those who do bear arms in the United States actually do so in transgression of the Second Amendment since it clearly states that your right to bear and keep arms will not be infringed upon so long as the security of the nation requires a militia force (which it doesn't)

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Oh, and King George isn't an issue anymore.

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

Trying to backdoor a law prohibiting the ownership or transfer of "high capacity" magazines. What is high capacity you ask? More than 10 rounds. 10 rounds! And the scumbag tried to hide it in a Cybersecurity bill.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

There's no way this guy is real. No fucking way. It's a CDT troll account. There's no way someone could be this completely utterly dumb.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.